Are you free to think that, or compelled?
If compelled, what compels you?
Consciousness and our will is our means of agency. It is the decisive process between thought and action. It lies between the causes of the world and the operation of our nervous system. These causes determine the outcome.
If this were “free” would we not be flouting the most basic fabric of the universe by being able to ignore cause and effect?
If we could reset the previous moment of time presumably the “free will” would be able to make a different choice. This could only render our choices meaningless, even random.
A choice can only make sense to us and the universe if it is determined by the conditions of the moment
You are offering a false dichotomy.
Do you believe in souls?
That is absolutely true. When you get right down to it, free will makes no sense, but the problem has to do with the definition of determinism which is not completely accurate because it implies we are controlled by antecedent conditions in a linear fashion. This has caused a major fracture in our ability to understand that determinism does not remove choice. This is a compelling observation because it reconciles the two opposing thought systems into one solution causing a major shift in a new direction that will benefit everyone.
There is no reset. The way you are using “reset” implies a remembering/learning you take with you to inform you toward a better decision.
A true reset involves forgetting, so, you would make the exact same decision.
Consider also where the remembering happens or is recorded. Is it not in the reset matter?
Do YOU believe in souls/spirits?
Definitions …matter.
Is this for me?
We are constantly moving from point A to point B or from “here” to “there”. We can’t stay in one position for always or we would be dead. We are under a compulsion, every single moment of our lives, to move away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position even if it’s just to scratch an itch or drink a glass of water when we are thirsty. Not every movement takes contemplation. Either way, we can only move in one direction regardless, so how can our will be free to choose what offers us less satisfaction when an alternative offering greater satisfaction is available? This is an invariable law. We cannot escape it. You need to understand that we are all different to a degree, so what one person might find more satisfying when comparing alternatives might not be what you would find more satisfying given the same options.
The problem is not with the definition. The definition is perfectly fine. The problem is with people who think that the definition implies something that it does not, namely, that we do not have choice. It does not. Determinism merely states that everything at every point in time is fully determined ( i.e. caused ) by something at an earlier point in time. It does not state or otherwise imply that humans have no choice. People equivocate – the equivocated word being “choice” – and that is what leads them to erroneously conclude that determinism implies no choice.
That is true, and if you ask someone who has not thought deeply about this subject: Do you have free will? They will say, “Of course. I am free to choose what I want, therefore it is obvious I have free will”
There is a problem with the definition and that is with the word cause. I know your stance and you will debate me on the fact that nothing from the past can cause the present if all that exists is the present. I know this bothers some people because it is believed that we see in delayed time. That’s up for debate even though science has claimed this as fact.
The reason this matters (as far as definition) is because there are two sides to this equation. One is the fact that man’s will is not free. There is no debating this. Two is that nothing can make us do what we make up our mind not to do. Nothing from the past can force us to do anything we don’t want. So many people think that determinism means being forced to do something against our will, which is false.
This understandably bothers lots of people. In fact, although we have no control over the fact that will is not free; once again, we have complete control over our ability to refuse to do anything we don’t want to do (we could die before doing something we don’t want). Having this control does not mean we have free will. This is not compatibilism. This knowledge is huge because it reconciles the two opposing thought systems (by understanding that we still have choice (i.e. we still have agency), and with this new understanding opens the door to a whole new world.
Yep-a-daisy.
Invariable… to a degree… interesting language happening from the same post(er). Did you change between “invariable” and “to a degree” … did you gain freedom in between?
We are all different to a degree only means our heredity and environment are different. It does not mean there is a difference in degrees of having free will.
That can be said of the same person at different moments of time. So there must be variability (degrees of freedom?) factored in. No?
Funny how things change.
Do you know what would be freaking hilarious? A debate surrounding the free will issue as well as the “whether or not anything changes” issue. Which I think may have happened a little bit earlier in the (or another) thread, but anyway. We can definitely do it better.
No matter how I explain the different meanings of “free”, you still are not getting it. Throughout this book he shows how much more freedom we will have when there are no restrictions or laws telling us what to do. The only restriction will be our own conscience, which will go from a approximately a 4 in this world to a 10 in the new world.
Roger that.
I’m going to use this thread. The determinism thread is so interspersed with unrelated comments, it would be hard for anyone to sift through.
The problem that continues to confound philosophers is that of moral responsibility, for it is believed that if people knew will was not free, they could easily use this as an excuse to do whatever they want with no accountability. What they don’t understand is that responsibility goes up tenfold when we extend the basic principle.
All I am asking is for people to stick to the subject matter and not go off on tangents.
It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as the Ten Commandments which came into existence out of God’s will, as did everything else, and consequently you have come to believe through a fallacious association of symbols that these words which judge the actions of others are accurate. How was it possible for the Ten Commandments to come into existence unless religion believed in free will? But in reality when murder is committed it is neither wrong nor right, just what someone at a certain point in his life considered better for himself under circumstances which included the judgment of others and the risks involved; and when the government or personal revenge retaliates by taking this person’s life, this too, was neither right nor wrong, just what gave greater satisfaction. Neither the government or the murderer are to blame for what each judged better under their particular set of circumstances; but whether they will decide to think and react as before will depend not on any moral values, not on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right and wrong, but solely on whether the conditions under which they were previously motivated remain the same, and they do not remain as before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals facts never before understood. We can now see how the confusion of words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse to assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free it would give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this knowledge.
No comment.
He’s already starting with me. I can’t get rid of him.